GARAŽA forum

Kako je tocak aviona puko onaj auto.

Nesto se pominju neki problemi sa kocenjem/kocnicama i u isto vreme sa reverserima, da je bilo zamerki Tupoljevu, da su imali neki hitan dopis ovih dana za proveru istih.

"The state news agency RIA Novosti cited an unidentified official at the Russian Aviation Agency as saying another Red Wings Tu-204 had gone off the runway at the international airport in Novosibirsk in Siberia on Dec. 20. The agency said that incident, in which no one was injured, was due to the failure of the plane's engines to go into reverse upon landing and that its brake system malfunctioned.

"On Friday, the Aviation Agency sent a directive to the Tupolev company's president calling for it to take urgent preventive measures."

dragvorl napisao:Kako je tocak aviona puko onaj auto.

I ceo red sedista koji izlece na put Da je bio pun putnika, uzas bi bio...

EDIT by mod: Slanje više uzastopnih poruka nije dozvoljeno. Postoji dugme ako je nešto izostavljeno u prvobitnoj poruci (izmena je moguća 30 minuta od prvobitnog slanja poruke). Slanjem više odgovora zaredom tema se razvodnjava i smanjuje se preglednost. Za ostala pravila ponašanja pogledati PRAVILNIK Garaža foruma!

Dve poslednje slike, nekoliko desetina sekundi pred udes. Po ovome sve izgleda kao jedno sasvim normalno sletanje. Mene podilazi neka jeza kad gledam ove fotke, znajuci da su ljudi poginuli nekih dvadesetak sekundi kasnije:


http://russianplanes.net/ID94177
Павел Фетисов (c)


http://russianplanes.net/ID94178
Павел Фетисов (c)

Snimak nekoliko minuta nakon udesa:

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=13e_1356848408

Avion se vracao prazan jer je ostavio turiste u Ceskoj.

Bocni vetar je bio sa udarima do 30 kts a pista suva, sto bi trebalo da bude u granici dozvoljenog.

Lagan avion je cesto teze sleteti od teskog aviona, jer lagan avion ima tendenciju da "propliva" (long flare). Znajuci ruske piste koje kao da su radjene po sablonu, duzina je sigurno 3km sto spada u dugacke piste.

Cak i da su sleteli van zone dodira (touchdown zone), komotno su mogli da se zaustave.

Uredjaji za kocenje aviona na zemlji sem kocnica, su ground spoilers i reversi. Bilo sta da ne radi od ovoga, proracunata duzina piste za zaustavljanje se strasno uvecava.

Na slikama se moze videti da se avion zaustavio 400m od kraja piste i to samo zato sto je mrknuo u neku prepreku, a moze se videti silina udara, kao da nije kocio u opste...

Ovde nesto debelo ne valja...

zuzazu napisao: Da je samo prvi slucaj u pitanju, moglo bi se se reci da ljudski faktor, ali ovako...

...neprijateljska diverzija?

Da ponovim citat od gore:

"The state news agency RIA Novosti cited an unidentified official at the Russian Aviation Agency as saying another Red Wings Tu-204 had gone off the runway at the international airport in Novosibirsk in Siberia on Dec. 20. The agency said that incident, in which no one was injured, was due to the failure of the plane's engines to go into reverse upon landing and that its brake system malfunctioned."

Edit:

"Belgian media are reporting that the incident was probably caused by a failing brake system and that the pilots tried everything to slow the plane down. There's no source in the report but it states that was determined after the first analyse of the FDR/CVR."

Edit 2:

It has already come to light: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news... ... 6545506612

I don't vouch for the accuracy of the conclusion that "bad brakes" were to blame, but the relevant quote to your question is "The plane touched down in the proper landing area but for some reason was unable to stop on the strip" according to Russian authorities.

Here's an earlier story with a headline that reaches an entirely different conclusion, but it includes the second part of that same quote: http://www.euronews.com/2012/12/30/i... ... jet-crash/

For those wondering how fast the plane was going, there's not an exact number given but the same guy says "It then careered at high speed and crashed into a radar beacon which it destroyed and then kept on going….”

So it was not a low speed overrun, it was a high speed overrun after touching down in the proper landing area. It used probably 6,000-7,000 feet of runway, traveled another 1,000 feet or so off the end of the runway and hit this embankment still at high speed. Something is very wrong there.

I realize there was an earlier incident with some sort of brake failure in the Tu-204 but a) it seems like the fix was not that difficult, and should have been done already, and b) I'd just find it incredibly coincidental that we'd have no Tu-204 incidents like this for several years, then suddenly have two identical ones in about a week, one of them fatal. It's possible, but it seems more likely that there were other factors involved, or that the cause is just completely different.

I keep thinking back to the TAM crash, which was a mystery for a long time and turned out to ultimately be a combination of pilot action, a technical fault and software design; the plane's auto-throttle and auto-spoiler software wasn't designed to act in the way the pilots expected in a situation with one reverser out (though it was documented and trained for, so ultimately it was pilot error). It wouldn't surprise me to see a combination of multiple factors here as well when all is said and done. I wouldn't put much stock in any of the conclusions being reached in the media already.

Zasto ponavljas, pa procitali smo?

Zbog drugog dela poruke.

Ja sam se malo šalio u prethodnoj poruci, ali jeste čudno što ti avioni lete godinama, i onda se za 7 dana dogode dva skoro ista incidenta.

Šta treba da se desi da istovremeno otkažu kočnice na točkovima, vazdušne kočnice i thrust reverseri? Ako je zaista reč o sistemskom problemu, to je onda problem u kompjuteru koji upravlja ovim sistemima.

Na zapadnim strucnim sajtovima navode se primeri Boeing i AB aviona, jer nikom nije poznato kako je to izvedeno na novom TU.
Uglavnom, ni u jednoj knjizi se ne pominje otkaz kocnica, jer sistem (bar na Boeingu) ima dva back up-a.
Moram priznati da je situacija mnogo zay. jer se rivers povlaci odmah po dodiru, a kada se jednom aktivira, nema ponovnog dodavanja gasa i produzavanja.
Jat ov Boeing je imao nesto slicno u Moskvi i posadi je trebalo prilicno da utvrdi da bema normalnog usporenja posle sletanja, a nisu imali ni indikaciju...
Sta je ovde po sredi, cucemo, crne kutije su vec na ocitavanju.

Odakle one fotografije neposredno pre sudara...

Da li je to praksa aerodruma da fotografise avione pri poletanju i sletanju, ili je to neki amater fotografisao slucajno

Postoje u svetu a i kod nas grupa ljudi jlubitelja aviona, oni se montiraju blizu PSS i fotkaju za svoju kolekciju. Verovatno je takav i Pavel Fetisov autor fotografija Red Wings-a, ispod fotografije stoji
данная фотография из личной коллекции

Bilo bi dobro da za slučaj krajnje nužde putnički avioni imaju ovakvo kočenje (na slici je Tu-104, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu-104). Tada nije bilo thrust reversera, pa je ovo bio standard za brze avione na kratkim pistama:

e hvala

e da sam bolje pogledao fotografiju i potpis, samo bi mi se reklo

snork to bi bilo jako skupo za uvesti, a proizvodjaci nece da troshe pare , osim na ono sto mora, i sto propishu standardi...